‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 > 
 
   
 

Police Violence in America

 
diding
 
Avatar
 
 
diding
Total Posts:  422
Joined  07-01-2016
 
 
 
29 June 2020 17:39
 

It would really amuse me to watch them enact the things they want.  They ain’t gettin’ nuthin’ from me cause I ain’t got none and what little I have I can defend.

 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  586
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
29 June 2020 18:19
 

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

I suspect the word “requirement” here is important and is being left out of the analysis. Arline Geronimus, who I’ve already mentioned and linked to, has suggested that African-American women having children earlier in life is actually adaptive because African-American women age faster due to higher levels of stress in their environment.

Women who have children at a young age are more likely to be single-mothers because their male partner is likely to be young as well and unable/unready to support a family, etc. That means that extended families often wind up taking care of and helping support the children of these young mothers.

Arline Geronimus points out that the dominant norm in our society is for women to have children at an older age within a nuclear family and single-mothers who violate that norm are often condemned from the standpoint of the dominant norm in society which works well for white women but not as well for African-American women.

I suspect this is what BLM is getting at. We should not condemn alternative forms of the family that may be adaptive in certain communities by assuming one particular family form as normative for everyone. Nothing in the quote suggests to me they are out to destroy nuclear families tout court and I don’t see what this particular proposal has to do with taking people’s summer homes.

This quote does not seem super unreasonable to me though I would like to see us put some effort into changing the conditions (higher stress in African-American environments) that make it potentially adaptive for African-American women to have children earlier in life.

[ Edited: 29 June 2020 18:22 by no_profundia]
 
 
diding
 
Avatar
 
 
diding
Total Posts:  422
Joined  07-01-2016
 
 
 
29 June 2020 18:45
 
no_profundia - 29 June 2020 06:19 PM

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

I suspect the word “requirement” here is important and is being left out of the analysis. Arline Geronimus, who I’ve already mentioned and linked to, has suggested that African-American women having children earlier in life is actually adaptive because African-American women age faster due to higher levels of stress in their environment.

Women who have children at a young age are more likely to be single-mothers because their male partner is likely to be young as well and unable/unready to support a family, etc. That means that extended families often wind up taking care of and helping support the children of these young mothers.

Arline Geronimus points out that the dominant norm in our society is for women to have children at an older age within a nuclear family and single-mothers who violate that norm are often condemned from the standpoint of the dominant norm in society which works well for white women but not as well for African-American women.

I suspect this is what BLM is getting at. We should not condemn alternative forms of the family that may be adaptive in certain communities by assuming one particular family form as normative for everyone. Nothing in the quote suggests to me they are out to destroy nuclear families tout court and I don’t see what this particular proposal has to do with taking people’s summer homes.

This quote does not seem super unreasonable to me though I would like to see us put some effort into changing the conditions (higher stress in African-American environments) that make it potentially adaptive for African-American women to have children earlier in life.

Are you saying that it’s too simple to listen to what admitted trained Marxists might mean in their own words, which I imagine they chose very specifically?  It takes a scholarly analysis to force their plain ol’ words into some bizarre interpretation.  What do you think, they’re not capable of expressing their ideas all by themselves without your help?  Having a nuclear family isn’t a requirement.  Turns out it’s useful, though.

 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  586
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
29 June 2020 19:08
 

Are you saying that it’s too simple to listen to what admitted trained Marxists might mean in their own words, which I imagine they chose very specifically?  It takes a scholarly analysis to force their plain ol’ words into some bizarre interpretation.  What do you think, they’re not capable of expressing their ideas all by themselves without your help?

No, I think they did express their ideas pretty clearly and the word “requirement” is a clue to what they meant which you left out of your analysis. If they were arguing that the nuclear family should be destroyed tout court I don’t think they would have included the word “requirement” or the statement “to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.” So yes, I think they did choose their words very specifically and I think you’re ignoring some of them in favor of a more alarmist interpretation.

The weathering hypothesis is fairly well-known. Arline Geronimus proposed it but other people have studied it and developed it. I think it’s unlikely that the person in charge of writing BLM’s mission statement is unaware of it. I am sure the person who wrote that statement has read more about race than me, and is more of a scholar than I am, so they don’t need me to explain it to them. It is possible my hypothesis is wrong but I think it is closer to the statement as it stands than yours.

 
 
diding
 
Avatar
 
 
diding
Total Posts:  422
Joined  07-01-2016
 
 
 
29 June 2020 19:12
 

If a Christian wrote that statement I would be intrigued and would try to find out if they might have meant something else by it.  What they are saying is completely understandable and no surprise coming from trained Marxists.  Why do you disregard the fact that they are self proclaimed trained Marxists and interpret what they say through that lens?  Really, much of what they say in their mission statement is consistent with Marxist ideology.  They’re proud of it.  It might be some kind of slight to deny them the benefit of the doubt that they understand Marx and what he had in mind for the family.

[ Edited: 29 June 2020 19:15 by diding]
 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  586
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
29 June 2020 19:33
 

Why do you disregard the fact that they are self proclaimed trained Marxists and interpret what they say through that lens?

Of course, if someone claims they are a Marxist and they make statements that sound similar to Marx it makes some sense to interpret what they say in terms of what Marx said. However, if there is a conflict between what Marx said on the topic and the actual statment from the person you are trying to interpret I think the actual words the person you are trying to interpret should take precedence over what Marx had to say on the same topic.

The way that statement is phrased does not match up with what I understand to be Marx’s position on the family. There was no talk (as far as I’m aware) in Marx of simply alleviating the “requirement” for nuclear families to the degree that people were comfortable. My understanding (which is admittedly imperfect) was that Marx thought the family was an ideological structure that would disappear with the disappearance of private property. The goal was not to destroy the nuclear family so that private property could be done away with. The goal was to eliminate private property and the family would disappear on its own.

That does not seem to me to line up with the quoted statement from BLM very well and I think what BLM actually said should take precedence in our interpretation over what Marx said even if BLM members claim to be Marxist.

I was a Marxist for many years when I was younger and I labeled myself as such. I never believed in destroying the nuclear family. I never even believed in destroying private property. I just felt Marx’s analysis of capitalism in Capital was largely valid and that there might be ways of instituting more collective ownership of the means of production. Contemporary Marxists depart in many ways from the strict letter of what Marx wrote and yet still call themselves Marxists. If your hermeneutic principle for interpreting every statement I made when I was a Marxist was “he mentioned topic X and he says he’s a Marxist so let’s see what Marx said about topic X and then attribute that view to him” you would have gotten a lot of my beliefs wrong.

I do wish the BLM website clarified what they meant by some of these rather vague statements. Perhaps they are vague on purpose so that people can read what they want into them. I read some people online claiming the statement was a condemnation of the norm that families should be composed of one cis male father and one cis female mother in favor of allowing for other types of families (gay couples, transgender, etc.). That does not seem to me to fit with the statement very well though I have no doubt it aligns with what the founders of BLM believe.

At any rate, ideally the best way to determine what someone means is to ask them. If we are unable to do that, I don’t think we should simply assume that the most uncharitable and extreme reading we can produce is what was actually meant unless we have very clear evidence that is the case. Perhaps there is clear evidence of that but I have not been able to find it so I prefer a reading that seems to me to be closer to the actual statement.

 
 
diding
 
Avatar
 
 
diding
Total Posts:  422
Joined  07-01-2016
 
 
 
29 June 2020 19:56
 

Motte and bailey all day….....

 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  586
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
29 June 2020 20:41
 
diding - 29 June 2020 07:56 PM

Motte and bailey all day….....

So what do you think they meant by including the word “requirement” and “to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable”? You have not offered a coherent interpretation that I think makes sense of those statements or qualifiers. Your interpretation seems to me to directly contradict those qualifiers.

Far from sticking to the ‘plain ol’ words’ of what is said in the statement you are bringing in all of your own views and prejudices about Marxists and interpreting the statement through that lens (I am having trouble finding any talk about taking people’s summer homes in the ‘plain ol’ words’). Your hermeneutic principle seems to be “if someone claims to be Marxist we can attribute anything Marx said to them” which is not a valid hermeneutic principle and is often going to lead to mistaken interpretations.

You haven’t really given me any reason for thinking my interpretation is wrong other than: it doesn’t line up with your view that BLM is out to steal your property and destroy society. There is nothing in my interpretation that I think contradicts BLM’s professed Marxism. Marxists also tend to believe that the inequalities in capitalism lead to a situation where the dominant group’s ideology gets imposed on groups of lower socio-economic status which is perfectly in line with the interpretation I offered (though Marxists generally view things through class rather than race so that is already one big area where BLM diverge from the letter of Marx).

At any rate, I think my interpretation is perfectly consistent with the statement as it stands, and with BLM’s professed Marxism, while I don’t think your interpretation is perfectly consistent with the statement as it stands. It is possible I am wrong but it seems unwise to me to rule out my interpretation as impossible. You seem to admit you are not even interested in trying “to find out what they might have meant” by the statement. It is not clear to me why anyone, ever would be uninterested in trying to find out what someone meant by a vague statement.

You mentioned reading a book that I think was on having rational arguments with people or something along those lines. It seems unlikely to me the advice in the book was “assume the worst of those you disagree with and do not even allow for the possibility that further clarification might alter your interpretation.”

 
 
diding
 
Avatar
 
 
diding
Total Posts:  422
Joined  07-01-2016
 
 
 
29 June 2020 21:14
 

I think the use of the word “requirement” is in itself a word play and I think the particular choice to use it is typical.  There are no requirements about having a nuclear family in the West.  Have you seen the co-founder woman of BLM talk about her Marxist training?  She says “We have an ideological frame”.  If I were to tell you that I am a Conservative, which I am not, and I made a statement like “I wish Black people would do more things to better their lives”, I can easily imagine what conclusions people on the New Left would make of that.  They would take the fact that I’m a Conservative and they would interpret it through the ideals of Conservatism.  They would say that I’m wanting them to “bootstrap” themselves or that I want them to act more like white people (which isn’t really an ideal of Conservatism, but that won’t stop the accusation).  They would never interpret it to mean that as a Christian, which I am also not, I loved all people and that I wished them only to succeed. 

Lindasy and Boghossian’s book also talked about listening to the actual words people use and not try to reinterpret them in a way that you like. 

Also, why do you think they didn’t use the word “Father”?

I anticipate that someone in BLM will come out and clarify the statement in question, then we’ll know.

[ Edited: 29 June 2020 21:38 by diding]
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  526
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
29 June 2020 21:31
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  586
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
29 June 2020 22:02
 

I think I am going to have to wrap things up after this post so you can have the last word if you want it (unless you say something to impugn my honor in which case I will be duty bound to respond smile).

I think the use of the word “requirement” is in itself a word play and I think the particular choice to use it is typical.

Maybe. This seems like like sort of an ad-hoc assumption to me but it is possible you are correct.

There are no requirements about having a nuclear family in the West.

No, but there is a fairly strong norm operating in the US that stigmatizes single-mothers as irresponsible, especially if they’re young.

Lindasy and Boghossian’s book also talked about listening to the actual words people use and not try to reinterpret them in a way that you like.

Which is exactly what I’m recommending. Interpreting something the way “you would like” does not always mean interpreting it in a nice friendly way. Lots of people want to believe in the worst possible interpretation they can give to statements made by people they disagree with or don’t like. Look at all the people on the left interpreting statements made by people they don’t like as racist.

This is also more easily said then done. I think what determines our views more than anything is: you are already unsympathetic to BLM so you are more likely to give a negative interpretation and I am more sympathetic (though I have some fairly major disagreements with BLM) so I am more likely to interpret their statements in a more favorable light.

I would be willing to bet that is a much stronger predictor of how the statement is interpreted then just about anything else. Which is all the more reason I think we should stick to the actual words and I don’t think the actual words, interpreted literally, suggest that BLM is out to destroy the nuclear family.

Have you seen the co-founder woman of BLM talk about her Marxist training?  She says “We have an ideological frame”.  If I were to tell you that I am a Conservative, which I am not, and I made a statement like “I wish Black people would do more things to better their lives”, I can easily imagine what conclusions people on the New Left would make of that.  They would take the fact that I’m a Conservative and they would interpret it through the ideals of Conservatism.  They would say that I’m wanting them to “bootstrap” themselves or that I want them to act more like white people.  They would never interpret it to mean that as a Christian, which I am also not, I loved all people and that I wished them only to succeed.

A couple points. The fact that people on the left also engage in questionable interpretive strategies based on assumed ideologies does not make it any less of a mistake (in some cases). Second, I think it often makes sense to interpret people’s statements in terms of their professed ideology and I said as much. Interpreting someone’s statement in a way that is consistent with their professed ideology is different from saying “Person X claims to be a Marxist. Marx said Y. Therefore, Person X must believe Y even though it doesn’t seem totally consistent with what they said about Y.”

I think my interpretation is perfectly consistent with BLM’s professed Marxism so I think it meets these criteria. An interpretation of your imaginary conservative’s statement in terms of “bootstrapping” seems to me consistent with the conservative ideology and in the absence of any conflicting information I think it would be a reasonable interpretation. What would not be a good first interpretation would be “Person X, who is also a conservative, claims that blacks are inherently lazy and that is why they don’t do more to better their condition, since you are also a conservative, you must believe that too.”

There is a difference between interpreting a statement in a way that is consistent with a person’s professed ideology and taking the most extreme caricatured view of that ideology and reading it into everything somebody says.

Also, why do you think they didn’t use the word “Father”?

I suspect for the reason I already mentioned: in African-American families single-mother households are much more common. This is a fact that is often used against African-Americans by conservatives. Conservatives often argue that all of the problems in African-American communities (or many of them), which African-Americans blame on racism, are really caused by the breakdown of the nuclear family among African-Americans and all the absentee fathers.

This is another reason I suspect BLM had something like my interpretation in mind. They are responding to those conservative critiques and arguing that a single-mother family, involving extended family and the community, is just as valid as the traditional nuclear family. This is my guess, I would need further clarification from the people who drafted the statement to be sure, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable interpretation to me.

Alright, I give you the last word now. Take care.

[ Edited: 29 June 2020 22:10 by no_profundia]
 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  76
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
30 June 2020 07:05
 
diding - 29 June 2020 09:14 PM

  There are no requirements about having a nuclear family in the West.

For over two decades, welfare has been consistently reformed in order to push poor families into the nuclear model.  Your claim that there are no requirements is false.

 
diding
 
Avatar
 
 
diding
Total Posts:  422
Joined  07-01-2016
 
 
 
30 June 2020 07:38
 
no_profundia - 29 June 2020 10:02 PM

I think I am going to have to wrap things up after this post so you can have the last word if you want it (unless you say something to impugn my honor in which case I will be duty bound to respond smile).

I think the use of the word “requirement” is in itself a word play and I think the particular choice to use it is typical.

Maybe. This seems like like sort of an ad-hoc assumption to me but it is possible you are correct.

There are no requirements about having a nuclear family in the West.

No, but there is a fairly strong norm operating in the US that stigmatizes single-mothers as irresponsible, especially if they’re young.

Lindasy and Boghossian’s book also talked about listening to the actual words people use and not try to reinterpret them in a way that you like.

Which is exactly what I’m recommending. Interpreting something the way “you would like” does not always mean interpreting it in a nice friendly way. Lots of people want to believe in the worst possible interpretation they can give to statements made by people they disagree with or don’t like. Look at all the people on the left interpreting statements made by people they don’t like as racist.

This is also more easily said then done. I think what determines our views more than anything is: you are already unsympathetic to BLM so you are more likely to give a negative interpretation and I am more sympathetic (though I have some fairly major disagreements with BLM) so I am more likely to interpret their statements in a more favorable light.

I would be willing to bet that is a much stronger predictor of how the statement is interpreted then just about anything else. Which is all the more reason I think we should stick to the actual words and I don’t think the actual words, interpreted literally, suggest that BLM is out to destroy the nuclear family.

Have you seen the co-founder woman of BLM talk about her Marxist training?  She says “We have an ideological frame”.  If I were to tell you that I am a Conservative, which I am not, and I made a statement like “I wish Black people would do more things to better their lives”, I can easily imagine what conclusions people on the New Left would make of that.  They would take the fact that I’m a Conservative and they would interpret it through the ideals of Conservatism.  They would say that I’m wanting them to “bootstrap” themselves or that I want them to act more like white people.  They would never interpret it to mean that as a Christian, which I am also not, I loved all people and that I wished them only to succeed.

A couple points. The fact that people on the left also engage in questionable interpretive strategies based on assumed ideologies does not make it any less of a mistake (in some cases). Second, I think it often makes sense to interpret people’s statements in terms of their professed ideology and I said as much. Interpreting someone’s statement in a way that is consistent with their professed ideology is different from saying “Person X claims to be a Marxist. Marx said Y. Therefore, Person X must believe Y even though it doesn’t seem totally consistent with what they said about Y.”

I think my interpretation is perfectly consistent with BLM’s professed Marxism so I think it meets these criteria. An interpretation of your imaginary conservative’s statement in terms of “bootstrapping” seems to me consistent with the conservative ideology and in the absence of any conflicting information I think it would be a reasonable interpretation. What would not be a good first interpretation would be “Person X, who is also a conservative, claims that blacks are inherently lazy and that is why they don’t do more to better their condition, since you are also a conservative, you must believe that too.”

There is a difference between interpreting a statement in a way that is consistent with a person’s professed ideology and taking the most extreme caricatured view of that ideology and reading it into everything somebody says.

Also, why do you think they didn’t use the word “Father”?

I suspect for the reason I already mentioned: in African-American families single-mother households are much more common. This is a fact that is often used against African-Americans by conservatives. Conservatives often argue that all of the problems in African-American communities (or many of them), which African-Americans blame on racism, are really caused by the breakdown of the nuclear family among African-Americans and all the absentee fathers.

This is another reason I suspect BLM had something like my interpretation in mind. They are responding to those conservative critiques and arguing that a single-mother family, involving extended family and the community, is just as valid as the traditional nuclear family. This is my guess, I would need further clarification from the people who drafted the statement to be sure, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable interpretation to me.

Alright, I give you the last word now. Take care.

I’m good.  We just brought our own bias into the interpretation.  I truly hope I’m wrong and you’re right, but if recent history is some kind of predictor, it will be revealed that the actual goals will be as extreme as they seem.  Remember “They don’t really want to abolish the police”, shortly followed by an op-ed in the Times, “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police”

I want policing to be reformed.

As far as the use of the word Father goes, I see it less as trying to de-stigmatize single motherhood as to normalize or celebrate it.  If you notice, BLM has, for some strange reason, placed a great deal of focus on Black Trans Women, that is, natal males.  The extremists in the trans community are pretty extreme.  I think they’re running that show now.  We can disagree.  I think the Theory you brought up about breeding strategies in the black community puts the cart before the horse.  It’s a cycle that ends with a behavioral change. 

Thanks for the decent discussion again.

 
diding
 
Avatar
 
 
diding
Total Posts:  422
Joined  07-01-2016
 
 
 
30 June 2020 07:48
 
weird buffalo - 30 June 2020 07:05 AM
diding - 29 June 2020 09:14 PM

  There are no requirements about having a nuclear family in the West.

For over two decades, welfare has been consistently reformed in order to push poor families into the nuclear model.  Your claim that there are no requirements is false.

This kid, T.,  who I used to employ, told me that if he married his baby Mamma that they would revoke her section 8.  My brother used to have a section 8 rental property that he rented to a decent, young, single mother, a veteran.  She told me that if she made any more money than she did, I think it was around $700/month that her section 8 eligibility would be removed. Seems like the system is keeping them on the Dole, what TRULY woke black people (T., among them) call the new “Plantation”.  He said that’s what they call the Trestle Tree apartments where he lives.

Have you ever spent any time in the hood or do you just read about it in the New York Times?  That’s an honest question.  No snark intended, I promise.

[ Edited: 30 June 2020 08:42 by diding]
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  76
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
30 June 2020 08:45
 

Only 40% of crime is reported to the police.
Of those, only 25% result in an arrest.
Of those, felony charges result in 59% conviction rate (not all of those arrests are for felony charges).

In effect, police are solving violent crime at 5% of the rate that it is happening in society.  Please tell me why we need an institution with a 5% success rate AND why that institution should account for more than 50% of municipal budgets.

 
‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 >